 MarkyDPremium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK | How much bandwidth is available to a VRAD? And how many users are typically connected to one? |
|
| Unlimitied |
|
 fiber_manThings Happen For A ReasonPremium
join:2001-01-27
Port Saint Lucie, FL | reply to MarkyD
Unlimited because they are fiber feed. Around here they are feed with 6 fiber but they are only using two fiber for now.
--
GO NOLES!! |
|
| SO they can offer much more speed for internet they just don't want to? |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | reply to fiber_man
Fiber may have unlimited potential but as deployed those two fibers have some sort of maximum speed. Know what it is?
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams. |
|
|
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to fartman1234
I believe they can go to 25Mbps, 50Mbps with bonded pairs. OTOH, U-Verse is a package which includes IPTV, and they aren't planning on giving U-Verse customers any choice. It won't be: "Either IPTV + 6Mbps Internet, or no IPTV + 25Mbps Internet". It will just be: "6Mbps Internet with, or without IPTV".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Norman or anybody
The local reps have strongly hinted that a 15-20 meg connections will become available when they activate u-verse (nothing official). I am guessing that the dsl remote terminals (we do not have one now) will be over the fiber that they put down a year ago. Do you think that these higher speed connections will be via dsl rather than u-verse? The current cable(charter, gack) has been at 10meg for a while(2-3years?) and my contact inside suggests that this will be upgraded to 15meg just before u-verse is made available(local att guys are aware of this). The fastest DSL we can get now is 1.5 meg(distance from head office).
Thanks
Lazlow |
|
1 edit | Well then sorry this service really isn't worth it then 25meg max for all tv and internet in 2008? this is kinda going dialup when u can get highspeed for bit more.They will have to offer 16/2 before i would even think of a 6hour install.I thought this thing was fiber internet lol but seems its just IPTV and very little to do with internet. |
|
| reply to NormanS
Read some of the other threads. Customers are getting 100Mbps+ total bandwidth to their homes over copper lines from the VRAD. There's speculation that speeds will increase in the not-too-distant future. But, who knows? |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | reply to MarkyD
said by MarkyD:And how many users are typically connected to one? I think they typically service 300-400 users. The alcatel website for the their FTTN equipment says they have multiple gig ethernet connections. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 | reply to fm2499
AT&T customers? I am addressing what I have read that AT&T claims that they will offer, not what SoftbankBB is already offering (in Japan). |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Lazlow
I only know what I have read about what AT&T is promising to offer. FTTP is on a back burner. U-Verse is FTTN. Supposedly 6mbps is the maximum they will go for Internet; reserving the rest for IPTV.
The closest RT to us is only about half a mile; but it serves a different neighborhood.
There is a VRAD which should serve us, but it hasn't been turned up, yet.
I have no inside contacts, only what I have found published in public places.
If they are planning faster than 6Meg Internet, they are holding those cards very close to their corporate vest...
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
 d_lBarsoomPremium,MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV
kudos:7 | reply to fartman1234
U-Verse "presumed" bandwidth needs | 
U-Verse bandwidth supply |
|
|
| reply to MarkyD
That chart is amazing. First off is the customers perspective of 6MB being faster enough. OMG. Then there is the 37.8 - 3.6 - 6 = 28.2 remaining for voice and 4 HD. Lets say thats 28 remaining for 4 video.... HD on 7MB? h.264 is better compression, but I thought I've read that it needs 9-12mbps bandwidth per stream. |
|
MarkyDPremium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK | said by Enlightener:That chart is amazing. First off is the customers perspective of 6MB being faster enough. OMG. Then there is the 37.8 - 3.6 - 6 = 28.2 remaining for voice and 4 HD. Lets say thats 28 remaining for 4 video.... HD on 7MB? h.264 is better compression, but I thought I've read that it needs 9-12mbps bandwidth per stream. well-If you've seen the over-compressed UVERSE streams, you'll know they're doing it with less (and pretty undesirable results.)
--
-Put this in your profile if you know someone who is fighting, has survived, or died from ninja attacks. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | reply to Enlightener
said by Enlightener:That chart is amazing. First off is the customers perspective of 6MB being faster enough. OMG. Then there is the 37.8 - 3.6 - 6 = 28.2 remaining for voice and 4 HD. Lets say thats 28 remaining for 4 video.... HD on 7MB? h.264 is better compression, but I thought I've read that it needs 9-12mbps bandwidth per stream. 10 meg is easy to do real time. Apple has a encoder that does quite good HD in 5 megs, but it cant currently be done in realtime. As the encoders improve and processing power improves, we are going to see lower bitrates will little quality loss. |
|
cwh
join:2006-05-14
San Antonio, TX | reply to MarkyD
said by MarkyD:said by Enlightener:That chart is amazing. First off is the customers perspective of 6MB being faster enough. OMG. Then there is the 37.8 - 3.6 - 6 = 28.2 remaining for voice and 4 HD. Lets say thats 28 remaining for 4 video.... HD on 7MB? h.264 is better compression, but I thought I've read that it needs 9-12mbps bandwidth per stream. well-If you've seen the over-compressed UVERSE streams, you'll know they're doing it with less (and pretty undesirable results.) I have seen them and the results are not what i would classify as undesireable. They could be better yes, but picture quality is not bad at all. I do see occasional jitter when there is camera pans, but this seems to be more of codec issue and not bandwidth.
The only time it has been bad is during march madness when the live game had significant compression issue. However during the nba finals,all was well with live basketball. |
|
fiber_manThings Happen For A ReasonPremium
join:2001-01-27
Port Saint Lucie, FL Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to djrobx
Again only limit is the equipment on both ends of the fiber. I know of fiber runs of 35+ miles running 32 oc 192's on two fibers (multiple bandwidths).
As for the 7330 Vrad. I don't know how much bandwidth it needs. I do know that several cabinets around here have 4 7330's in one cabinet running on 2 fibers.
My guess is that in time they will be able to up the speed by doing a software upgrade in the central office.
--
GO NOLES!! |
|
| I don't know about the DSLAM to the CO, but the DSLAM to the premise could easily be upgraded through a software upgrade to VDSL2. |
|
| reply to cwh
Ok, assuming that 10MBS meets everyones subjective standards ( it doesn't meet mine but hey... )
Then by ATT's own calculators you would need atleast 50MB of bandwidth ( 4x10 + 6 internet + 4 overhead and pots ) to meet a basic 4 HD concurrent streams pattern. This is going to mandate the use of pair bonding by their own statements.
This is just insane... 50MB is what I would like to have for Internet ALONE... |
|
